Not a member yet? Why not Sign up today
Create an account  

  • 5 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
 
Guaibee's Useful (and experimental) Fuel Engine Platform

#31
@Aner-Dyfan & Guaibee, you guys rock!
I know steam is all the rage, but I still don't see how it is campaign viable when resource production is so limited, so I am really greatful for these engines that provide decent power at a fuel cost I can live with.
Reply

#32
(2017-01-09, 06:28 AM)Krougal Wrote: @Aner-Dyfan & Guaibee, you guys rock!
I know steam is all the rage, but I still don't see how it is campaign viable when resource production is so limited, so I am really greatful for these engines that provide decent power at a fuel cost I can live with.

Exactly. Awesome designs here, unspellable appreciation. Thanks a lot for all of this.

Now, about steam engines... Since using a few of them in campaign mode outpace basic ressource production as quickly as a gunshot crosses a street, i don't think injector engines are as obolete as the word goes. In campaign, saine managment of ressources and fuel being available whatsoever are probably more important factors to build a compact 10 000 injector engine to occasionnaly power up shields and LAMS than what might pushes someone to pack 50 000 (and up) power from a steam engine into a craft, for practical reasons.

I could read now and then that some ppl think the same, and as such, i beleive that adding some good injector engines in here will benefit quite some campaign lovers, including me.

I've been fiddling aroung 2 designs for 2 months now for a campaign start. I hope to publish them on the steam workshop sometime but i'm optimizing them atm. Power source and usage is obviously at the center of my thoughts and if i could put my hands on a good injector engine, i'd help.

I was sorry to read that they seem to be sorted out for most.

Thanks for reading.
Reply

#33
(2017-01-11, 11:04 PM)Stiiick Wrote:
(2017-01-09, 06:28 AM)Krougal Wrote: @Aner-Dyfan & Guaibee, you guys rock!
I know steam is all the rage, but I still don't see how it is campaign viable when resource production is so limited, so I am really greatful for these engines that provide decent power at a fuel cost I can live with.

Exactly. Awesome designs here, unspellable appreciation. Thanks a lot for all of this.

Now, about steam engines... Since using a few of them in campaign mode outpace basic ressource production as quickly as a gunshot crosses a street, i don't think injector engines are as obolete as the word goes. In campaign, saine managment of ressources and fuel being available whatsoever are probably more important factors to build a compact 10 000 injector engine to occasionnaly power up shields and LAMS than what might pushes someone to pack 50 000 (and up) power from a steam engine into a craft, for practical reasons.

I could read now and then that some ppl think the same, and as such, i beleive that adding some good injector engines in here will benefit quite some campaign lovers, including me.

I've been fiddling aroung 2 designs for 2 months now for a campaign start. I hope to publish them on the steam workshop sometime but i'm optimizing them atm. Power source and usage is obviously at the center of my thoughts and if i could put my hands on a good injector engine, i'd help.

I was sorry to read that they seem to be sorted out for most.

Thanks for reading.

I feel the same way about the steam, it just doesn't seem sustainable given the small amount of non-exhaustible resources. I suppose if you were good at capping big ships, which gives more resources than destroying them.

Injectors on the other hand, I avoid like the plague. Only on small aircraft where there is just no other choice. I may be too obsessed about fuel efficiency because I'm sure I still spend a lot on ammo so the fuel still becomes kinda minimal, but the fuel tankage injector engines need gets expensive fast...especially when you consider it isn't just the 1 time fee, if they get destroyed they have to be rebuilt. Then there is the logistics support to refuel it, which means your tankers need to be bigger too.

I'm sure there is a break-even point somewhere that the steam, expensive as it is becomes more practical than a low efficiency engine. Especially if you already need a ton of batteries for railgun, PAC, laser shields, etc.

So anyway, for now it's still 1288ppf for me. Anyone able to scale the 1800, 5x4x5...to maybe a 5x4x7 (5x3x7 would be even better, but Evil_Brick's doesn't seem extendable)...I have the length but I really need the height. I don't need a tremendous amount more power either, 2-2.2k would be perfect for this build.
Reply

#34
I've done some extendable injector engines in the past and put them on a platform: http://www.fromthedepthsgame.com/forum/s...?tid=24602
I avoid putting injectors onto this one because it becomes a direct competition with steam (which it loses to with quite some margin) as injectors get larger.
[Image: 50157_s.png]
[Image: 50157_v.png]
Reply

#35
Just want to add my voice to the chorus of thanks. As a new player, this engine platform has helped me work towards viable ships a lot faster than I could have without, while also expanding my understanding of this marvelous game.
Reply

#36
It'd be interesting if someone compared various costs for a small steam turbine hybrid with very efficient electric motor vs current best fuel engines - obviously the pile of batteries would massively decrease PPB, but maybe there's a niche it excels in ( plus well, railguns/laser shields etc all need battery anyway ).
Poke my boat! mostly pre-2.0 learning & catalogue thread - Update: Heavy & light tanks 07/04/18 for 2.1. 6 ships made 2.0 aware. No more post-processing! finally! but now I can't read the forum.
Reply

#37
For battery charging purposes, turbines are probably the best bet.

Power (or charge) density for a turbine/battery setup would probably still be better than fuel engines (small injectors could get up to ~70PPBB, but that's about it), not to mention fuel tanks having an absurd initial cost and paradoxically low storage capacity compared to material storage containers (and injectors will necessitate a lot of fuel tanks).

As for continuous fuel efficiency, turbines are 2000 power per material, and injectors are ~65 power per fuel (which translates to 650 power per material for fresh fuel tanks or 6500+ power per material for good refinery setup), so there is no significant advantage in favour of injectors in this department either. Depending on the boiler size, materials may be wasted in the ramp up time between idling and battery charge load, but ultimately it doesn't make a huge enough difference.

Not sure about RTG power density, but the 0-fuel engines (coined by Aner Dyfan) that consumes no fuel at full load, the Carpet in particular (with the highest PPBB as of now), are probably taking over the ultra-efficient battery charge niche by having a lower initial cost and still costing nothing to run (though I'm not too sure about RTG charge density since it's in the form of discontinuous pulses, and 0-fuel engines generally require a lot of space).
[Image: 50157_s.png]
[Image: 50157_v.png]
Reply

#38
Well, I did mess around a little, the power density of a small hybrid system is terrible - 6x6x5 block, mostly batteries, 3 small boilers feeding a turbine ( so 5? 6? blocks for that ) plus electric motor at 0.25% ( ish, I forget the exact number ); that ended up at about 1480 power for 0.5 material/s. More boilers would of course raise the density but that's by letting you lower the electric efficiency, so I'm not sure there's anything at all to gain in efficiency with that route. The system is great at dealing with power spikes so good for driving LAMS, but that's another concern.

Of course that's experimental data rather than formulaic, but I haven't dug out the electric motor efficiency formula yet.
Poke my boat! mostly pre-2.0 learning & catalogue thread - Update: Heavy & light tanks 07/04/18 for 2.1. 6 ships made 2.0 aware. No more post-processing! finally! but now I can't read the forum.
Reply

#39
The calculation of electric battery charge, storage and electric engine output (and how they all influence each other when you add a load onto it) is beyond me as of now (how much battery charge do I need to maintain electric motor output and such), so I haven't experimented a lot with electric engine setups, though replacing steam with a fuel engine would most probably lower the density further (the extra space you require may be proportionally less than between pistons and fuel, but turbine is twice as powerful in battery charging as pistons, so the density drop may be comparable) and necessitate fuel tanks, so I don't think I can make any conclusions yet.
[Image: 50157_s.png]
[Image: 50157_v.png]
Reply

#40
So are we at the edge of fuel engine technology or is the next big breakthrough right around the corner?
I got a request if anyone feels like doing, need the "Lollipop" engine (5x5x9, 7400p, 354ppf) or rough equiv with a side or even top/bottom exhaust.
Honestly ALL these front exhaust designs are killing me, because that tends to be exactly where I can't route it conveniently. I understand you gotta work with the connection options Nick has given us, and lord knows any attempt I have made to modify an engine exhaust ends in disaster.
Reply



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)